Bill S-210 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament)
Senate bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 8, 2010
- Debated in principleMarch 17, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 26, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 1, 2010
- Became lawDec. 14, 2010
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Tommy BanksSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Stephen Woodworth7 interventions in debatemoved the bill multiple times and described it positively as fixing an oversight
- Richard Nadeau2 interventions in debatestated the Bloc Québécois supports the bill
- Jim Maloway2 interventions in debatedescribed the bill as correcting an oversight and applauded the sponsor's work
- Bernard Bigrasexplicitly stated support for the bill along with all parties
- Joyce Murraystated clear support for the act to ensure involvement of both Houses
- Larry Bagnellnoted the bill is supported by all parties and called the situation positive
- David McGuintyHe calls the bill important and regrets that prorogation delayed its passage.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,778 words introduced, 951 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill was changed to require reports and strategies to be laid before both the Senate and the House of Commons instead of the House of Commons alone. References to committees and annual reports were updated to reflect participation by Parliament as a whole.
- Strategies must now be laid before each House of Parliament rather than only the House of Commons.
Before: “dated strategy to be laid before the House of Commons on any of the next 15 days on which that House is sitting after the strategy is updated.”
After: “shall cause each updated strategy to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the next 15 days on which that House is sitting after the strategy is updated.”
- The report is submitted to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons for tabling in their respective Houses.
After: “The report required by subsection (2) shall be submitted to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall lay it before their respective Houses on any of the next 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker re”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses fixed timelines and mandatory tabling steps to structure parliamentary involvement. A few subjective phrases still leave room for argument over what counts as compliant content.
Open to argument
“ate to the department or agency's mandate”
Subjective test that invites debate on whether a strategy meets the standard.“which is a continually evolving concept”
Undefined and shifting description of sustainable development that blurs boundaries.
Clear-cut
“for which the Minister shall allow a period of not less than 120 days”
Fixed minimum period creates a clear, measurable obligation.“on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it”
Specific window tied to sitting days removes timing disputes.“at least once every three years”
Objective frequency that can be verified without interpretation.
Discretion. Ministers decide the detailed content of departmental strategies and the Commissioner chooses what to highlight in reports, within the broad frame of the Federal Strategy and each mandate.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed procedural rules and numeric deadlines make successful vagueness or overbreadth claims under section 7 of the Charter unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. A department could dispute whether its strategy is sufficiently 'appropriate' to its mandate, turning on interpretive arguments rather than simple facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.